The Art That Kills
I thought of the Sea Lord again when I heard this public radio piece, thinking of our old discussions about having a court decide “what is art.” But in this case, it’s not a laughing matter. A Hutu who helped incite the genocide of the Tutsi in Rwanda with music has been convicted at the International Tribunal, but not for his music. The court found that there is no way to prove that music has an impact on politics. (The singer was convicted for speeches he made from a sound truck rather than for his recordings.)
Free speech advocates hailed the ruling, but artists of all kinds must have mixed feelings. We WANT our work to have impact. If artistic expression is free only because it doesn’t influence the world, then that freedom isn’t worth much. Freedom, in this context and many others, gains meaning only in the context of responsibility--that is, being free to express yourself matters because what you say counts, for good or bad.
It’s always been clear to me that responsibility requires freedom (since one can only be accountable only for one’s own free acts), but now it’s also evident that the linkage goes the other way as well.
- Forwarded from The President in Exile.
http://www.theworld.org/taxonomy_by_date/2/20081203
posted by JAB at 4:08 PM
2 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
Here's the thing. Art is about freedom. It is the ultimate expression of freedom, or the longing for freedom. That's why I refuse to acknowledge any element of "art" in the work of 12 year old graduates of Chinese gymnastic camps, and why there was so much great art from behind the Iron Curtain, back in the day.
I really miss Ryszard Kapuściński, who understood this pretty well, and David Bronstein, whose relentless pursuit of creative achievement drove his Soviet masters to distraction ("forget beauty, just win").
Let's send 8 million of these to Africa.
Post a Comment
<< Home